I recently asked ChatGPT to identify the top leadership attributes from the most admired companies. Unsurprisingly, it listed qualities like visionary thinking, decisiveness, integrity, communication skills, and resilience. Noticeably absent? Humility.

"Old school" corporate culture has long celebrated outwardly bold and assertive leadership styles, and it is easy to understand why these approaches are so well engrained. But a growing body of evidence suggests that humble leaders may be more effective at driving engagement and performance.

Last week marked Celebrating Neurodiversity Week, and for many, the topic may have elicited a mix of emotions – from intrigue and optimism to exhaustion or even eye-rolling. For me, it is less about celebrating and more about facing the glaringly obvious truth: most of our conventional leadership best practices have been designed to serve neurotypical brains, and need to be re-examined through the lens of neurodiversity. Now more than ever, leaders have an imperative to optimize their management practices in the context of cognitive diversity.

Today, organizations need to think differently about diversity, going beyond race, gender, age, religious belief, and sexual orientation to embrace people with cognitive differences.  This article provides recommendations on how leaders must evolve to effectively lead diverse thinking teams and the critical role Executive Coaching can play.

“Neurodiversity” refers to people who think, learn, and behave differently than the norm.  Neurodiverse people may have diagnosed conditions like ADHD, Dyslexia, or Autism, or they may simply learn and process differently without a diagnosed condition.  This is not a small cohort; Neurodiverse people represent around 20% of the workforce.

Imagine this: You're the CEO of a major tech company. Your day is scheduled down to the minute with meetings, presentations, and strategic planning sessions. But there's one type of meeting you'll never find on your calendar - the dreaded one-on-one. Jensen Huang, the uncompromising leader of Nvidia, has abolished them entirely for his 40 direct reports: "I don't do any of them unless they need me, and then I drop everything for them". Why not? Because they create complexity and asymmetrical information flow: "in our company people are empowered by what they can do, not what they know." His radical move flies in the face of conventional management wisdom that prizes face time and open dialogue between bosses and employees.

Deloitte's 2019 revelation that purpose-driven companies outperform their rivals was a wake-up call. But fast-forward to less than three years later, Deloitte confessed a snag – the intangible nature of purpose leaves organizations grappling.

What went amiss? Purpose is indeed crucial. It aligns with our innate quest for meaning – a quest that McKinsey quantifies with a staggering statistic: 70% of our life's purpose is tied to our work. But herein lies the conundrum – purpose primarily addresses extrinsic outcomes, while meaning is deeply intrinsic.

Your LinkedIn feed is abuzz with announcements of individuals stepping into new roles, but amidst the excitement lies a stark reality: 40% of new leaders find themselves ushered out the door within a mere 18 months, a costly misstep for leaders and hiring companies.

Drawing insights from executive recruiters, coaches, and transitioning leaders, these are the key reasons leaders struggle:

This is the season for performance management dialogues, a pivotal moment where candor meets consequence.  Unfortunately, many people put off these conversations until the last minute, and don't prepare properly.

If this is you, you are not alone.  Remarkably, a recent study unveils a hidden truth: 70% of managers sidestep difficult conversations.

So how can leaders prepare, and conduct these challenging conversations?

I found wisdom in the trenches of healthcare professionals. Whether tackling mental health or navigating Oncology and NICU scenarios, these individuals confront tough conversations daily.  Here is what I learned:

In 2003, psychologist Susan Nolan Hoeksema shone a light on the "Epidemic of Overthinking," revealing that 73% of 25–35-year-olds were grappling with this mental hurdle.  Read More

In our current era, marked by heightened stress and uncertainty, those numbers are likely on the rise. Today, let's delve into the serious matter of overthinking.

In my coaching work with executives, I see firsthand how leaders grapple with decision-making in an ever-changing and unpredictable environment.  This can lead to “Overthinking”, which manifests itself in repetitive and unproductive contemplation, fixation on past mistakes, and anxiety about the future.

We have all felt the crushing gut punch of rejection.  Whether in a personal context or at work, rejection is perhaps one of the most debilitating emotions.

Firstly, rejection is a real, scientific phenomenon.  It is not imagined, and you are not having a pity party.  When the brain experiences rejection, it responds as if it is in physical pain.  So, it is unsurprising that rejection hurts, and that it could lead us to stop taking risks altogether.

But what if we could reframe how we perceive rejection?

In today’s turbulent business landscape, the need for compelling communication has never been greater. As executive coaches at The Preston Associates, we’ve stood beside leaders navigating through unprecedented turmoil. We firmly believe that effective leadership thrives on the way we communicate, especially when the news is less than ideal.

Every day, we work with leaders facing the daunting task of delivering unfavorable updates. To equip our clients with the best tools, we turn to the wisdom of the Stoic Philosophers. Aristotle, a prominent figure in this tradition, emphasized the importance of three key elements in effective communication: Pathos, Logos, and Ethos.

We have all had that “I could really use some help to tackle this” moment.  It is like using the Phone a Friend option on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”.  Today Executives in large organizations and Founders in startups commonly look for outside help so solve business problems or develop new skills and capabilities.  They need fresh perspectives, objectivity, and specific skill sets that their current organization cannot provide internally.  And there is no shortage of mentors, coaches, advisors, and consultants to choose from.  But what is the difference between these roles and how do people choose the right ones?